A bare-faced lie - from a predictable source

There is nothing particularly unusual about current weather and climate change – it is generally well within long-term normal patterns. – Tim Ball, CFP, July 20, 2007


So the earth has warmed a degree or so since about 1860. It has warmed more than that in the past 10,000 years and it has cooled off again. So what’s untruthful about Ball’s statement? A degree of warming in about 140 years certainly falls within the range of past temperature swings. All of these swings would have been accompanied by variable weather, much like today.

You really should get help for your Tim Ball fixation, Richard.

It is hard to read your charts but they appear to start about 1850 and plot temperatures since then. Again it is hard to discern the numbers but they appear to confirm what is widely agreed – there has been a rise of about a degree C since around 1860, when the world finally shook off the Little Ice Age. Since paleoclimactic records indicate temperature swings up and down larger than a degree in the last 6,000 years alone, Balls’ statement that we are within planetary norms seems pretty solid to me.

You can prove anything graphically by carefully selecting start and stop points for your plot lines.

Wrong. The rate of temperature increase over the last 150 years is likely the highest since the last ice age over 10,000 years ago. This is far from “normal”.

“You can prove anything graphically by carefully selecting start and stop points for your plot lines.”

Just like Ball’s (and Lindzen’s) ridiculous assertion that “the world has cooled since 1998”, which is complete rubbish. 1998 was a strong El Nino year and was the warmest year on record up until 2005 came along. What are Ball and Lindzen going to say now? “The world has cooled since 2005?”

Give me a break! I don’t even know why I’m wasting my time with you, John, as you won’t listen to the science or reason.

The fact that the most recent warming has occurred during a period of reduced solar activity seems somewhat unusual, don’t you think Mr. Dowell? (No, of course you don’t.)

It figures that you warmists would hang your hats on that early July report about there being no correlation between sun activity and the warming of the late 80s and 90s (global temps have been pretty constant since 1998 with no trend in either direction). Like any piece of research, however, this one will be subjected to scrutiny by other scientists.

The critiques have already begun. Google a .pdf document titled: Shining More Light on the Solar Factor: A Discussion of Problems with the Royal Society Paper by Lockwood and Frohlich. It is prepared by Jospeh D’Aleo, Richard Willson, and Nicola Scafetta.

This may not be the slam dunk you warmists hope it is but I am sure that won’t stop you from using the Lockwood/ Frohlich report as your smoking gun. Nuance has never been a strong suit of the warmist cult.

I didn’t think I’d see the day when one of you actually responded with something good to read! John, this must be my lucky day. It’s like I’ve bought tickets before with no expectation of winning but now I’ve won the lottery!

On the other hand, let’s see, there’s the stratospheric cooling and shrinking that supports reduced solar activity. But I’ll look for and read this work if I can find it. Check back if you want to talk about it. Why didn’t you include in which publication it appeared?

You complaining that, “Nuance has never been a strong suit of the warmist cult,” is really hilarious! It’s the AGW denier “cult” which uses 1998 as a starting point when looking at recent global temperature trends. And now I’ve gone to read the paper by D’Aleo and found that red herring fished there, too. Talk about a cult! Look at the experts at ICECAP and consider this definition of “cult”: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. Now trade the word “conventional” for “scientific” and the phrase “charismatic leader” for “Exxon-Mobil et al” and I think you’ll see which group is a cult. It’s funny, ICECAP says it gets no $$ from large companies and relies on private investors. But all the names I recognized there are people who have received money through links to Exxon.

Regarding the critique. First it’s not authored by Willson and Scarfetta, only D’Aleo who interviews them. Second it is not published in any peer-reviewed journal – it’s just put on ICECAP’s website. The rest will take some time and I should get to my job. But it’s not looking very good.

I am sure Tim Ball has bigger fish to fry than you, Richard. You used to be a journalist earlier in your career, according to the bio stuff on Desmog. When did you abandon your journalistic ethics of being accurate and balanced? You have morphed into a propagandist.

Tim Ball has tried to sue before and failed. The reason? He had no grounds for complaint. He misrepresented himself (just like the defendant had stated) almost as much as he misrepresents climate science.

“When did you abandon your journalistic ethics of being accurate and balanced?”

Who are you to tell who is being “accurate and balanced”? You don’t even listen to the vast majority of climate scientists (i.e. experts on climate science) about climate science.

Instead, you listen to former mining executives and economists (i.e. those who are not experts in climate science), industry-funded PR campaigns, and ideologically-blind wingnuts.